Assertions relating to the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda controversy have filled countless news articles and books and cannot be completely recapped and answered in a few articles. But despite all of the ink and bandwidth spent on the topic, there are additional questions yet to be fully explored in the eyes of many.

When one attempts to dig on questions, such as what meetings actually took place between Saddam Husseins regime and al-Qaeda members  where they took place and when, and what was discussed  the CIA emerges as one of, if not the major, intelligence players involved in public discussion of the topic.

Two former CIA members with relevant experience go on record below with their analysis of the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda question and the CIAs role.

Before reengaging this topic it is important to be aware that different interpretations of events, affiliations, and terminology greatly affect the analysis, and are the reason opinions can appear to be so far apart. Some issues:

 Are reports relating to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda being put through a filter of comparisons with what Bush administration officials and others said?

 Are reports being compared with what analysts deemed to be enough to warrant a costly, deadly war?

 Who determines if someone is a member of al-Qaeda and what is the criteria for membership?

 What constitutes a relationship between a terrorist group and a state?

 What constitutes an operational relationship between a terrorist group and a state? Is something less than an operational relationship still worthy of concern? A war?

 Did the CIA have access to all the reports on Saddam Husseins Iraq and terrorism, or were reports scattered throughout many Department of Defense branches, intelligence agencies, and non-government entities?

Since both the Mujahadeen and Saddam were weapons of the US intelligence community in the early 80s, I would assume the connection and co-operation between the Mujahadeen Sunnis and the Ba’ath party goes back well before Dubya got involved in the family business.

Thanks for the ping. Well the leftist sure were making categorical declarations day one there was NO Saddam and al Qaeda connections. How did they know? And just what all was destroyed in the early days of US sending Saddam underground? Another common answer given throughout these interviews nobody knows.

Saddam and his boys sure did seemed to have a very detailed handle on who was in or was not in country.

6
posted on 08/14/2009 12:11:07 PM PDT
by Just mythoughts
(Bama and Company are reenacting the Pharaoh as told by Moses in Genesis!!!!!)

Since both the Mujahadeen and Saddam were weapons of the US intelligence community

Only problem is that a complete fabrication with no base in fact. The US had ties with Pakistani Intellegence who had ties with the Mujahadeen. The "US intellegence community" had no such ties with either the muhahadeen or Saddam that the Neo-isolations routinely claim. It a completely made up Internet myth or, in short, just another Leftist lie.

11
posted on 08/14/2009 1:11:56 PM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Obamanomics: we have to destroy the US Economy in order to save it!)

M.E.: Recently released FBI files show that Saddam Hussein reportedly admitted only one or two meetings between his regime and al-Qaeda and that it was al-Qaeda who reached out to him and he rebuffed them (as opposed to reports of al-Qaeda rebuffing Iraq and there being more than just a few meetings). Is it your understanding that it was al-Qaeda pursuing the relationship and Iraq denied them or is there more to the story?

P.P.: Thats pretty much my sense. I dont think theres anything more to the story.

Only problem is the documents captured during the Liberation prove this claim to be factually incorrect so either the source has NO clue what he is talking about or he is another fraud posting as knowing more about the CIA then he actually does. Members of Saddam's Intellegence agency traveled to meet with Al Qeda respresenatives a number of times. That documented fact. So the whole contention here is either in error or and out and out lie.

In either case that level of factual error in the 1st 2 paragraphs indicates that this source is either wholly ignorant of the facts on Iraq or out and out lying.

12
posted on 08/14/2009 1:20:27 PM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Obamanomics: we have to destroy the US Economy in order to save it!)

Perhaps I should’ve been more clear in my initial statement. I wasn’t endorsing the view that Osama bin Laden himself was a CIA creation (the whole Tim Osman codename thing that even the Washington Post picked up on some years ago). But it isn’t disputed that we funneled weapons and money (along with advisors) through the ISI to the MAK, which was a precursor to Al Quada. Unlike some of his brothers (Salem comes to mind) he was never pro-US in any way.

But this is yet another example of covert interventionism burning us. You can unleash a rabid dog against your enemy, but odds are the dog will end up biting you too.

As far as Saddam and the Baathists... CIA veteran Miles Copeland (who organized Operation Ajax) and former NSC staffer Roger Morris have talked extensively about how the Baath Party was a tool in Iraq going back to the late ‘50s with Qasim. And needless to say, the CIA was feeding both sides intel in the Iran-Iraq war from Saudi AWACS. More brilliant interventionism. Here’s a quote from April Glaspie, who was ambassador to Iraq in 1990 during a meeting with Saddam and Tariq Aziz:

“But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ‘60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”

Of course, Saddam was a moron and a glorified hitman and didn’t realize there’s a difference between diplomacy and reality. In any event, here’s some interesting reading for you.

That’s the trillion dollar question. Are the constant failures of interventionism better than the potential failures of isolationism? As much as I hate being the World’s Policeman (and most of that crap came from Democratic administrations, or neo”conservative” advisers who are glorified militant leftists), that Pandora’s Box was opened years and years ago and there is no closing it. If we must do it, I’d prefer more covert operations rather than massive deployments to the World’s toilets.

Nice you have feelings, too bad your feelings are complete divorced from all fact or reality.

Your claims are made up propaganda put out by arrogant fools too ignorant to admit they were wholly wrong about the Iraq war. The facts of the matter are complete at odds with these Neo-Isolationist lies your are repeating.

The "US Intellegence" Community had no ties with either Saddam or the Majaheeded in the 1980s. That is a lie. It has NO base in fact. NONE.

Here is a FACT your Neo-Isolationist liars cannot explain away. 99.9% of the weapons and equipment captured in Iraq were either Russian or European in origin. The US equipment was support equipment easily purchased on the International arms market.

27
posted on 08/15/2009 3:15:01 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Obamanomics: we have to destroy the US Economy in order to save it!)

People such as yourself are the reason we have Obama in the White House. While we are focused on him trying to destroy Capitalism and implement Socialism exactly what do you think the Islamic Fascist are doing?

As for your opinion on Saddam, you are wrong. Then again isolationist (Ron Paul supporters) and Liberals aren't very well educated on foreign affairs.

In addition, your disrespect for President Bush was a dead giveaway. Most of all, I would rather have President Bush in office anyday than that nitwit community leader pushing Chicago style politics Marxist style.

28
posted on 08/15/2009 5:13:37 AM PDT
by Paige
("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)

What you are claiming is an Internet myth. A made up lie. It has no base in fact. It is political propaganda without the slightest hint of a clue of a notion of fact. Not sort of wrong, it is wholly wrong. Your "sources" are simply screaming an accusation with utterly no proof at all to back it up then repeating the lie over and over and over hoping their lie will become accepted as true if they just keep screaming it loud enough.

Here is what the Iraq war was about. This is fact. What you are claiming is just the usual hysteric drivel screamed by Neo Isolationist know nothing Libertines desperate for some way to excuse their being wholly wrong about the Iraq war. They are LYING TO YOU.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido. Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

30
posted on 08/15/2009 5:36:38 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Obamanomics: we have to destroy the US Economy in order to save it!)

Wow... alright then. Do you leave your home or do you just hide under the bed afraid the muzzies are gonna come get you? And I don’t think we were debating the current Iraq invasion, we were discussing how the Mujahadeen and Saddam was used (along with the Iranians) during the late 70s and 80s as a counterbalance to the Soviets. Even though I think interventionism, especially in a region of the World stuck in the 12th century, is idiotic, I actually supported the invasion and to this day don’t believe we should leave. But again that wasn’t the debate, and I wish you’d stick to the crux of the argument instead of trying to derail it and repost the same crap you always do.

CIA financially supported the Afgans including arming the rebels and Saudi’s did the same thing with their holy warriors to drive out the Atheist Soviets. The Afgan natives didn’t like the Saudi’s for various reasons but the Afgan’s were fighting the Soviets; they would use any resource to drive them out. If weapons and funds were intermingling with the the two groups is the CIA responsible?

If a Saudi Holy Warrior came across a stinger missile from a dead Afgan Warrior after a major battle; is the CIA responsible for that too?

Why do OBL types like AK-47’s? Where did they get them from?
Dead Soviet soldiers?

The reason AKs show up in nearly all anti-US nations is because the Soviets mass produced them and literally gave them away to anyone willing to take up arms against Americans or American interests. I had actually always wondered why you’d see these African or Arabs who couldn’t afford a pot to piss in all armed to the teeth with AKs and a Marine friend filled me in.

"thanks bud. look forward to your thoughts." Mark. I started to take notes that I was going to use as comments to you in this posts, but soon discovered all I was writing you in better form state in your conclusions within the article. Perhaps we shall never get a accurate picture of just how Saddam worked with the various terrorist groups at any level short of a few highly probable sporadic connections which do not appear to show the linkage many of us believed was a slam dunk so to speak. But thanks for all your efforts over these years to attempt to bring out what could be recognized as the truth on this matter(s). Your work is has not been in vain. You sought out the truth regarding the mad man.

But thanks for all your efforts over these years to attempt to bring out what could be recognized as the truth on this matter(s). Your work is has not been in vain. You sought out the truth regarding the mad man.

Also, AK-47’s are easily copied and reproduced by a skilled gun smith in these third world countries. A gun is more important than a pot to piss in if your country is totally dysfunctional. Got to protect your turf.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.